February 2026

Upcoming NCCOR Webinar Explores Strategies to Advance Recess in Schools

February 2026, NCCOR

Join NCCOR on March 10, 2026, from 3–4 p.m. ET for the next Connect & Explore webinar titled “Supporting Recess in Schools: Evidence, Health Impact, and Action.”

Physical inactivity is a leading contributor to chronic disease in the United States. While physical activity is beneficial across the lifespan, it is especially critical during childhood to support physical, mental, and emotional health and development. Schools offer a unique setting to promote physical activity, as children spend a significant portion of their day there. Ensuring that recess is a consistent part of the school day is an evidence-based strategy to increase physical activity, foster healthy habits, and support children’s physical and social development. Establishing recess requirements through state law is important for setting up schools to successfully implement recess. To support the establishment of state-level recess law, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg American Health Initiative developed Play, Policy, and Potential: A Toolkit to Support Advancing Recess in Schools Through State Laws.

During this one-hour webinar, experts from the Bloomberg American Health Initiative and the University of California will discuss the development and practical applications of the Recess in Schools Toolkit and explore how researchers and practitioners can use this resource to inform policy and practice.

This webinar will feature:

• Erin Hager, PhD, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
• Rachel Deitch, MS, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
• Hannah Thompson, PhD, MPH, University of California Nutrition Policy Institute

Registration for the webinar is free, but space is limited, so register early to secure a spot. Please consider sharing this information on your social networks using the hashtag #ConnectExplore. We will live-tweet the webinar, so follow the conversation at @NCCOR. The webinar will be recorded and archived on www.nccor.org for those unable to attend.

Back to Top

NCCOR Toolbox: NCCOR Webinar Highlights the PARO Framework as a New Roadmap for Physical Activity Research

February 2026, NCCOR

Last month, NCCOR hosted a Connect & Explore webinar titled “Advancing Physical Activity Research and Practice with the PARO Framework.” The session introduced the Physical Activity Research Opportunities (PARO) framework, a strategic new tool that consolidates hundreds of disparate research recommendations into a single, actionable roadmap for researchers, funders, and practitioners. Experts from the National Institutes of Health and the Center for Nutrition & Health Impact discussed how the framework addresses critical gaps in the field, specifically the need for more real-world implementation studies and policy-focused interventions. View the recording here.

[Source]

Back to Top

2024-2025 NOPREN Special Collection

January 2026, Nutrition & Obesity Policy Research & Evaluation Network

The NOPREN Special Collection features peer-reviewed publications authored by NOPREN members in 2024-2025. This curated collection showcases the impact of NOPREN’s collaborative research and evaluation activities. It spotlights the many ways in which NOPREN member’s research has informed nutrition policy and practice at the national, state, and local levels. Included in the collection are articles on early childhood, drinking water access, federal nutrition assistance programs, rural food access, and pediatric obesity.

[Source]

Back to Top

HER Impact Report 2005-2025: 20 Years of Healthy Eating Research

January 2026, Healthy Eating Research

Launched by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) in 2005 and led by Mary Story, PhD, RD, Healthy Eating Research (HER) has transformed the field of childhood nutrition and obesity prevention research. At the time, when obesity rates were rapidly rising, little was known about the most effective policies and environmental factors shaping children’s eating patterns and weight. HER filled this gap, shifting the conversation from individual responsibility to systemic, policy-driven solutions, recognizing that health is powerfully influenced by our social conditions and circumstances, such as the communities we live in, as well as economic, educational, environmental, structural and corporate factors. HER-funded research has demonstrated that consistent access to affordable, nutritious food is essential for protecting children and families from poor health outcomes.

Over the past 20 years, HER has emerged as a national leader in policy, systems, and environmental (PSE) strategies to promote healthy eating. PSE strategies focus on embedding sustainable changes within communities, reaching more people than traditional education and information programs alone. HER has shaped the research landscape and catalyzed meaningful policy changes to improve nutrition and health equity for children and families nationwide. Through timely and strategic grantmaking, HER has responded quickly to emerging nutrition challenges and helped ensure research is aligned with real-world decision-making.

[Source]

Back to Top

Food is Medicine 2025 Impact Report

January 12, 2026, Food is Medicine Coalition

FIMC is pleased to share the incredible work of our coalition members and the collective impact FIMC had in 2025. Together, we advanced food as medicine with care, compassion and clients at the center.

Not only does the Summary detail the incredible life-saving services our agencies provide, day-in and day-out, but it showcases the many ways the Coalition supports providers at any stage of their journey through our Programs. It also details progress made last year on our strategic goals of promoting health for all, building capacity, strengthening policy and ensuring sustainability.

[Source]

Back to Top

Household Food Security in the United States in 2024

December 30, 2025, U.S. Department of Agriculture

An estimated 86.3 percent of U.S. households were food secure throughout the entire year in 2024, with access at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. The remaining households (13.7 percent) were food insecure at least some time during the year. Very low food security is the more severe range of food insecurity where one or more household members experience reduced food intake and disrupted eating patterns at times during the year because of limited money or other resources for food. In 2024, 5.4 percent of households experienced very low food security.

[Source]

Back to Top

Statewide Universal School Meal Policies and Food Insecurity in Households with Children

January 2026, American Journal of Preventive Medicine

Introduction

Food insecurity disproportionately affects U.S. households with children, causing adverse health and developmental outcomes. During COVID-19, federal waivers enabled free meals for all K–12 students, but these waivers expired in 2022. Subsequently, some states adopted their own School Meals for All policies. This study examined whether households in states with School Meals for All policies experienced lower food insecurity than those in states reverting to means-tested programs and whether associations varied by family income.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey of 3,377 caregivers from 8 states (4 with School Meals for All policies, 4 without) was conducted in spring/summer 2023 and analyzed in 2024. Household food security was measured with the U.S. Department of Agriculture 5-item module. Generalized estimating equation models estimated the association of School Meals for All with food insecurity, adjusting for sociodemographic factors, prepolicy county-level food insecurity data, and state-level clustering. Interaction terms tested differential effects by free and reduced-price meal eligibility.

Results

Households in School Meals for All states had a 12% lower prevalence of food insecurity than those without School Meals for All (adjusted prevalence ratio=0.88; 95% CI=0.82, 0.94). This association was most pronounced among households eligible for free meals (19% lower prevalence; adjusted prevalence ratio=0.81; 95% CI=0.76, 0.86) and those near free and reduced-price meal eligibility thresholds (adjusted prevalence ratio=0.82; 95% CI=0.67, 0.98).

Conclusions

Statewide School Meals for All policies were associated with lower household food insecurity, particularly among those with low or near-low income. These findings support School Meals for All as a strategy to reduce food insecurity and suggest that expanding School Meals for All could further benefit families with school-aged children. Future research should assess School Meals for All’s long-term impacts.

[Source]

Back to Top

Parent-Reported Measures of Weight-Related Health Behaviors in Early Childhood: A Scoping Review

January 19, 2026, Childhood Obesity

Background

Pediatricians support families in establishing healthy behaviors, yet there is limited information on valid and pragmatic questionnaires for assessing weight-related health behaviors in early childhood (≤24 months). The objective of this review is to summarize the evidence on parent-reported measures of weight-related health behaviors and/or parenting practices (e.g., feeding practices, dietary intake, sleep duration/routine, physical activity/sedentary behavior, and screen time) in early childhood.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review by searching MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane from inception to May 2025 (Open Science Framework Protocol https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ME5KW). Articles included were peer reviewed, original research, published in English, and parent-reported measures of weight-related health behaviors in early childhood that reported psychometric results and/or were used in primary care. Trained reviewers systematically extracted details on the setting, questionnaire, and psychometrics. Findings were summarized using descriptive analysis.

Results

Our search yielded 26,642 articles with a final data set of 223 articles. Of the 100 unique questionnaires identified, most (90%) assessed parents’ feeding practices and/or children’s dietary intake; few assessed sleep duration/routine (13%), screen time (13%), and/or physical activity/sedentary behavior (12%). Of the 52 articles describing questionnaires used in primary care, 35% reported psychometric analyses.

Conclusions

Most questionnaires measuring weight-related health behaviors in early childhood assessed parent feeding practices and/or children’s dietary intake. Few questionnaires used in primary care reported psychometric results. Comprehensive, valid, reliable, and pragmatic questionnaires of health behaviors in early childhood are needed in the primary care settings to standardize screening for obesity risk in early childhood.

[Source]

Back to Top

Caring for Kids of All Sizes: An Outpatient Quality Improvement Pilot Project to Decrease Weight Stigma

January 19, 2026, Childhood Obesity

Weight stigma is a pervasive problem affecting children’s mental and physical health. This unique pilot project sought to improve pediatric providers’ attitudes and confidence in skills around weight stigma by combining education with practice changes. Educational interventions and practice changes around the weighing process were performed at a pediatric primary care clinic across 1 year. Providers at the practice took the same self-assessment survey at baseline, before and after each intervention, at project end, and 6 months post-project completion. Results showed statistically significant increases in confidence in skills related to identifying and addressing weight stigma in clinic, both at project end and in long-term follow-up. This project may represent a model that other practices could adapt to improve weight stigma in their own clinics.

[Source]

Back to Top

Voices From the Field: Individual Leaders Share Their Stories of Food is Medicine

January 17, 2026, American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine

Interest in Food is Medicine (FIM) interventions has surged nationwide, reflecting a growing commitment to integrating nutrition into health care. FIM approaches typically combine medically tailored or supportive food with nutrition and culinary education, aiming to improve clinical outcomes and health equity. As the field expands, it draws together diverse public and private actors from across health care, food systems, and agriculture, including clinicians, farmers, policymakers, retailers, and community advocates, alongside the individuals and families these programs serve. While existing research largely emphasizes program design and quantitative outcomes, qualitative inquiry offers an important complementary lens by describing provider and patient experiences. However, personal narratives of those shaping FIM remain underrepresented. This work elevates nine distinct voices from across the movement, including program founders, participants, health care leaders, clinicians, and food producers. Their stories reveal shared priorities of health improvement, equity, and scalability, while underscoring the passion driving this work. Ultimately, these accounts illuminate the human dimension behind the promise of FIM: food is medicine, and so much more than medicine too.

[Source]

Back to Top

Beyond Fresh: Implications of Produce Prescription Policy for Food Systems Transformation

January 10, 2026, NPJ Science of Food

Food policy is implemented as a far reaching strategy to drive individual, systems, and environmental level changes. Yet, food policies, even when well intentioned, could reinforce dietary disparities and impede progress towards shaping equitable, resilient, and sustainable food systems. The Food is Medicine movement in the United States (US), including approaches such as medically tailored meals, medically tailored groceries, and produce prescriptions, offers a timely platform to examine these dynamics. Food is Medicine interventions are offered in conjunction with healthcare systems to support patients with low-income to receive healthful food to prevent or manage chronic disease. Within this broader landscape, this commentary focuses specifically on produce prescriptions as a case through which to consider how policy design can support or constrain food systems transformation.

The Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP) Produce Prescription Policy

The 2018 Farm Bill allocated $250 million for the US Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP) to support nutrition incentive projects, produce prescription projects, and the National Training, Technical Assistance, Evaluation, and Information Center (NTAE). These funds aim to improve food and nutrition security among Americans with low-income through incentives to purchase or acquire fruits and vegetables (FVs).

Specifically, the goal of the GusNIP Produce Prescription Program is to increase FV intake, reduce individual and household food insecurity, and lower healthcare utilization and associated costs. GusNIP grants fund Food is Medicine approaches to provide a prescription for fresh FVs within healthcare settings to individuals with low-income and chronic disease risk. Precise requirements for GusNIP produce prescription grants are transferred from Farm Bill policy into a Request for Applications (RFA), which have described eligible prescriptions as fresh, whole, or cut FVs without added sugars, fats or oils, and salt. US Congress legislated the requirement at a time when many produce prescriptions were provided in conjunction with a farmers market partner, shaping the policy’s focus on fresh. Since then, the landscape has evolved, highlighting the need for policy adjustments to accommodate a broader range of produce types.

As one of the most well resourced produce prescription funding mechanisms, GusNIP’s fresh only requirement continues to shape how produce prescriptions are conceptualized and implemented in the US, even as some other Food is Medicine initiatives define produce prescriptions more broadly to include frozen, canned, and dried FVs. Notably, the GusNIP Nutrition Incentive (NI) program already allows fresh, frozen, canned, and dried fruits and vegetables that meet a “no added sugars, fats or oils, and salt” standard, demonstrating that broader eligibility can align with existing program criteria.

The NTAE, led by this Comment’s co-authors, provides GusNIP grantees with evaluation and implementation technical assistance. Through this work, the NTAE has identified potential unintended consequences of the GusNIP policy on food systems transformation, which currently limits produce prescriptions to fresh FVs. We outline how broadening eligible produce for prescriptions to include frozen, canned, and dried could better support equitable, resilient, and sustainable food systems. A policy revision strategy for transforming food systems is provided, with insights that can be applied globally.

Unintended Consequences of a GusNIP Produce Prescription Policy

The requirement to limit prescriptions to fresh FVs may unintentionally constrain the effectiveness of the policy. This restriction could potentially lead to negative consequences for implementors and participants, as well as the broader food system, and may ultimately hinder progress toward GusNIP goals.

For grantees and partners implementing produce prescription interventions, limiting eligibility to fresh only may reduce their ability to provide an adequate amount and variety of FVs. GusNIP produce prescriptions are available at participating farm direct sites, clinics, and/or brick-and-mortar food retail sites. Settings that offer produce prescriptions must balance efforts for the public good with what is economically viable. Stocking fresh FVs can be problematic for some retailers due to seasonality, food supplier(s), infrastructure, consumer demand, and capacity issues. Furthermore, many produce prescription projects aim to support local food producers that process fresh FVs into canned, frozen, and dried products. However, without intentional procurement strategies, expanding eligible FV types could inadvertently increase reliance on large-scale supply chains rather than supporting local or regional food systems.

For produce prescription participants, evidence demonstrates that certain communities and geographies face distinct barriers to accessing affordable and available FVs, especially fresh. Fresh only restrictions may disproportionately impact communities with limited retail infrastructure (e.g., rural) or shorter growing seasons. In these settings, frozen, canned, and dried FVs offer advantages such as convenience, lower cost, reduced preparation time, and reduced spoilage risk. Frozen, canned, and dried FVs have extended shelf-life, which helps those with lack of transportation and/or inadequate kitchen equipment. Since frozen, canned, and dried FVs are preserved, they have longer shelf lives than fresh, which can help reduce spoilage and food waste in the household and across the food system. Restricting the types of FVs allowed may also limit an individual’s ability to satisfy foodways. For example, beans are a staple in many cultures, but restricting to only fresh has the potential to eliminate this option for those that only have access to canned or dried beans. For these reasons, participants’ ability to purchase and consume enough and a variety of FVs may be compromised; the opposite of what GusNIP aims to achieve.

The produce prescription RFA allows grantees to petition USDA for exemptions in cases when public health emergencies disrupt the food system or run counter to cultural food practices. Even so, grantees report apprehension to the NTAE about requesting an exemption or difficulty providing justification within stated guidelines. Moreover, grantees with limited resources and capacity may experience administrative burden to develop and submit such a request.

Strategy for Strengthening Produce Prescription Policy and Promoting Food Systems Transformation

It is critical to mitigate unintended consequences of food policy by revising or enhancing it in ways which remove impediments to food systems transformation. Within GusNIP, this likely means eliminating the fresh FV requirement and expanding to all relevant FV types, including fresh, frozen, canned, and dried. The strategy (Fig. 1) for advancing this food policy offers an opportunity to examine how these changes must occur alongside food system transformations, such as infrastructure development, provider implementation tools, and participant support, that collectively promote a sustainable and healthy food system.

A concrete policy revision may reduce produce prescription project implementation barriers and further support and bolster participant engagement. Put simply, implementors of these projects could and would be more flexible in the type of FVs offered, and in the process, provide participants with greater variety. At the same time, expanding to include frozen, canned, and dried produce could also help address persistent challenges in the food system, such as limited access to healthy food, seasonality, and food waste. For example, frozen, canned, and dried FVs can be consistently accessible and available to participants in areas with limited access to healthy food or shorter growing seasons. Additionally, fresh produce that cannot be distributed in time or is imperfect can be preserved and sold, helping to increase profitability for farmers, support local economies, and reduce food waste.

To realize such benefits, it will be important to map out infrastructure across the food system that must be strengthened to support this Food is Medicine policy change. If all varieties of FVs (e.g., fresh, frozen, canned, and dried FVs) are included, the food system needs to be structured in a way that allows implementors to supply these foods and participants to access them. A resilient food system provides foods available through supply chain infrastructure, while Food is Medicine leverages these systems to deliver accessible, affordable, health-promoting foods. When intentionally aligned, they create a synergistic model for improving population health. Ongoing technical assistance and evaluation are essential to ensure that policy and systems changes are implemented effectively and appropriately. These supports can help identify and address challenges in real time, assess impacts across settings, and ensure continuous improvement toward intended outcomes.

Ensuring a consistent supply of varied FVs requires attention to both production and infrastructure that moves food through the system. While specialty crops already receive support through programs such as Specialty Crop Block Grants and subsidized crop insurance, these mechanisms do not consistently extend to the processing, aggregation, and preservation infrastructure needed to supply frozen, canned, and dried products. Strategic investment in regional preservation and processing capacity, supported in part by programs like the Local Agriculture Market Program (LAMP), could strengthen supply chain resilience and expand year-round FV access, though these programs have historically been underfunded. Strengthening supply chain logistics to ensure efficient handling, storage, and distribution of fresh, frozen, canned, and dried produce is also essential so that participants can reliably access items that meet their needs. Training and technical assistance will be necessary for implementers to adjust procurement and stocking practices when multiple produce forms are included, while nutrition education, participant-facing tools (e.g., apps, loyalty cards), and point-of-purchase prompts can support participants in selecting and using all types of produce. Simultaneously, effective produce prescription delivery requires provider-facing tools such as training, communication strategies, and clinical workflow support.

There are concrete ways in which policy change could be operationalized. The first step for a produce prescription policy in relation to GusNIP would involve government action, specifically through an act of Congress to change the legislation. The new US Farm Bill, where legislation for GusNIP resides, was expected to be passed in 2024, but is currently in limbo. There is some momentum for a change outlined in a bill by US Senators Cornyn, Luján, and Tuberville to allow frozen along with fresh. If such a change were incorporated into the legislation, this would in turn influence the RFA language released by USDA. Beyond USDA’s administrative and logistical support, for example, the USDA could also play a pivotal role in promoting this information to potential GusNIP grant applicants. On the supply chain, USDA could support knowledge transfer and capacity building around sustainable practices with producers and other key actors. Other government agencies also have essential roles to play in the successful deployment of Food is Medicine policies. For instance, the FDA is responsible for overseeing food safety standards and labeling regulations, and is an entity that could ensure that any local produce used in these initiatives meets the necessary health and safety requirements. State and local agencies would also be crucial in supporting the on-the-ground implementation of Food is Medicine policies. For example, state level health and agriculture departments already coordinate produce prescription programs in some regions, and local health departments, Extension systems, and hospitals often facilitate participant enrollment, retailer partnerships, and nutrition education delivery. These agencies are directly involved in managing food system infrastructure, from coordinating local food hubs to facilitating access to nutrition incentives and produce prescriptions at the community level, including at food retail businesses. To avoid unintended shifts towards reliance on large-sclae supply chains, expanded eligibility can be paired with procurement guidance that encourages or prioritizes purchasing from local and regional producers when feasible. For this policy change to be successful, it will require a stepwise and coordinated effort across multiple government agencies.

It is also important to outline potential drawbacks of expanding eligibility to include frozen, canned, and dried produce. For example, expanding GusNIP’s eligibility could lead to local market distortions, with shifts in demand adversely affecting various types of produce pricing and availability. More likely, managing a broader range of produce introduces logistical complexities that could create administrative challenges for both implementers and participants, requiring adjustments to infrastructure, distribution systems, tracking, and consumer purchasing behaviors. Food safety, labeling, and quality control are already overseen through standard regulatory mechanisms in retail supply chains, suggesting that including frozen, canned, and dried FVs would not require substantial new oversight but rather alignment with existing standards. Moreover, some organizations may face increased administrative burdens as they adapt. However, challenges can be mitigated with strategic planning and investments alongside policy implementation. For example, the US government’s recent change in administration, which includes the Health and Human Services “Make America Healthy Again” initiative, could align with Food is Medicine efforts to support policy change. However, realizing these goals will likely require strengthened support and capacity within key US agencies, some of which have recently experienced funding reductions and operational constraints.

Efforts to empirically understand intended and unintended implications of Food is Medicine policy changes on equitable, resilient, and sustainable food systems are also warranted. Little empirical data beyond NTAE-level observations on the relationship between GusNIP policy specifications and impacts on key food and health and business/organizational outcomes exists, although co-authors are examining some of these questions with Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funding. Tangential research about food-related behaviors involving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants found they are more likely to buy frozen FVs. Another study found that purchasing frozen FVs is associated with higher overall FV intake in the general population. This type of peripheral research is important when considering how Food is Medicine policy changes may impact participants and broader outcomes.

These insights are relevant beyond the US, as there is a growing global precedent for integrating food-based approaches into healthcare systems to support patients with low-income in accessing nutritious food to prevent or manage chronic diseases. For instance, the United Kingdom’s Healthy Start program provides pregnant women and families with children under four years old that have low-income with vouchers to purchase healthy foods, including FVs. Another example is Israel’s new pilot project launching in 2025 to test produce prescriptions for patients with diabetes and low-income. While each country has unique healthcare, policy frameworks, and food systems, it is crucial to assess the effectiveness of these initiatives in terms of equity, resilience, and sustainability.

In a world where food insecurity is persistent, FV intake are well below recommended levels, and diet-related chronic disease is at an all-time high, it is paramount that food policy supports food systems transformation through available, accessible, affordable, and desirable foods towards healthy and sustainable diets.

[Source]

Back to Top

Participation in a Produce Prescription Observational Cohort Intervention Is Associated with Improvements in Child Fruit and Vegetable Intake

December 30, 2026, Childhood Obesity

Background

Produce Prescription Interventions (PRx) are designed to improve food insecurity and diet quality by offering greater access to healthy fruits and vegetables (FV) and nutrition and culinary education. This study evaluated the relationship between participation in a family-based PRx and child FV intake.

Methods

Between November 2022 and December 2024, children (0–18 years) and caregiver dyads were recruited to participate in a 6-month PRx that provided 16 pounds of FV per month and virtual nutrition and culinary education sessions monthly. Adult-reported child FV intake data were collected at baseline and post-intervention. The effect of the intervention on child FV intake was evaluated by multiple mixed model regression analyses.

Results

A total of 176 dyads completed an FV intake evaluation. Participation in the intervention was associated with a significant increase in fruit (R = 0.21, p = 0.004) and vegetable (R = 0.30, p < 0.0001) consumption. When adjusting for demographic and programmatic variables, the effect of time remained significant.

Conclusions

These data support the hypothesis that PRx participation is associated with a modest improvement in FV intake, but barriers to FV intake remain. Further work is needed to understand the optimal PRx design to achieve healthy FV intake in children.

[Source]

Back to Top